One stock argument deployed by anticircumcisionists is their contention that Jews changed the procedure in the 2C AD, implementing a more radical excision. Prior to that time, circumcision didn’t expose the glans. In other words, modern Jewish circumcision isn’t the same as (or comparable to) OT circumcision. So goes the argument.
I have reservations about nonspecialists who think they can jump straight into the Mishnah, Talmud, and Tosefta. These are often obscure documents that require a lot background knowledge to appreciate the context.
According to this article (see below), rabbinic Judaism did not alter the traditional procedure. Rather, some Jewish assimilators were shirking the traditional procedure, and the Mishnah was merely reaffirming the traditional procedure. In other words, the traditional procedure did expose the glans. That’s not a later innovation.
Ironically, this article is posted on an anticircumcision website.
So... I take it you are in the pro "circumcision party"? Perhaps in league with those mentioned in Titus 1:10?
ReplyDeleteI might ask also, what if you are wrong? That means you are advocating mutilating children without even a Judaizing excuse.
John
ReplyDelete"So... I take it you are in the pro 'circumcision party'? Perhaps in league with those mentioned in Titus 1:10?"
Have I said circumcision is necessary for salvation? No. Have I said circumcision is a religious duty for gentile Christians? No. Have I said circumcision is a religious duty for Jewish Christians? No.
What I have said is that we shouldn't persecute and prosecute Jewish parents for practicing a divinely sanctioned rite.
"I might ask also, what if you are wrong? That means you are advocating mutilating children without even a Judaizing excuse."
Do you think the OT advocated "mutilating" Jewish boys?
With respect, you completely ignored the objection. The objection was, "what if you are mistaken?" if Jews did change the rite, then it is not divinely sanctioned. Since for Christians, the rite is not divinely recommended, and since doubt exists about what exactly the rite was, you can't be sure what precisely is divinely sanctioned.
ReplyDeleteAnd what if I'm not mistaken? Hypothetical objections cut both ways.
ReplyDeleteWhat if you're mistaken about Eastern Orthodoxy? What if you're pointing others to a false gospel?
If you're not mistaken, then you have denied people the right to practice a false religion. This is lose/lose for you.
ReplyDeleteYour rejoinder does not present me with such a no win scenario.
Judaism is a false religion?
ReplyDeleteI presented evidence. You present no counterevidence. Instead, you resort to hypotheticals.
ReplyDeleteSo there's a basic asymmetry between my argument and yours. I have evidence, you have no evidence to contrary. A hypothetical makeshift is a sorry substitute for evidence.
Sure it's a false religion. Does the teachings and practices of modern Judaism save you? Does it represent what God wants you to do?
ReplyDeleteAs for evidence vs counter evidence, why should I even go down that path? I could discuss evidence for the correct procedure for stoning people to death, but it's a bit moot when the whole practice is suspect in the new covenant. Mutilation of children requires a higher standard than balance of probabilities. It requires certainty.
There are degrees of truth and falsehood. Try not to be simplistic.
Delete"Mutilation" is your tendentious characterization.
Likewise, the permissibility of circumcision is not contingent on its mandatory status. You keep raising objections I already addressed. If you can't keep up with the argument, don't waste my time.
So it's open slather for religions that have "degrees of truth"?
ReplyDeleteMutilation is a correct term for describing what we are talking about.
And it's mandatory for the child for whom it is being imposed on. Did anyone ask the child? If not, then it is mandatory.
Yes, there are degrees of truth. Judaism is far truer than Mormonism (to take one example).
ReplyDeleteYou're equivocating over the sense of "mandatory"–probably because you lack the sophistication to draw necessary distinctions. Something can be morally permissible without being morally mandatory. Once more, make an effort to keep up with the argument.
(a) if we are running with your secular state claims, then religious truth is irrelevant. (b) why is either Mormonism OR Judaism "true enough" that you feel the need to pander to them? (c) Judaism is untrue on the issue in questions, I.e. making circumcision a religious necessity. (d) I'm not equivocating on the meaning of mandatory. Who makes it mandatory is neither here nor there if the end result is someone gets their body modified without consent. Apparently you think the "right" to practice a false religion trumps a child's right to not have its body mutilated.
DeleteJohn
Delete"(a) if we are running with your secular state claims, then religious truth is irrelevant."
You lack the ability to even keep track of your own argument. You were the one who raised the issue of religious truth, not me, when you labeled Judaism as "false religion," then used that to justify outlawing Judaism. So I'm answering you on your own level. Try to master the elementary distinction. You're a slow learner.
A secular state wouldn't have to tolerate Judaism out of deference to religious truth. It might tolerate Judaism because persecuting Jews could result in a brain drain. Likewise, suppressing a given religion can precipitate a civil war.
Conversely, it might not tolerate Islam if that's a socially destabilizing force.
"(b) why is either Mormonism OR Judaism 'true enough' that you feel the need to pander to them?"
I didn't say that Mormonism was "true enough." You're chronically illogical.
"(c) Judaism is untrue on the issue in questions, I.e. making circumcision a religious necessity."
Irrelevant to whether circumcision is tolerable. Moreover, the state can tolerate a religion for different reasons than the religious offers. Try hard to be minimally logical.
"(d) I'm not equivocating on the meaning of mandatory. Who makes it mandatory is neither here nor there if the end result is someone gets their body modified without consent."
i) Under the OT, 8-day-old Jewish boys had their bodies modified without their consent.
ii) If an accident victim is wheeled into the ER unconscious, and requires emergency surgery, his body may be modified without his consent.
Stop raising knee-jerk objections that disregard obvious counterexamples.
"Apparently you think the 'right' to practice a false religion trumps a child's right to not have its body mutilated."
i) Do you view the OT rite of circumcision as "mutilation"?
ii) Like other Eastern Orthodox I've dealt with, you're an anti-Semite.
What a hodge podge of logical fallacies.
Delete(i) So why is Judaism true enough that you feel the need to pander to them? Why aren't you here arguing for female circumcision to pander to other false religions?
(ii) Yes, a state "can" pander to false religions for various reasons. Pandering to child mutilation would require one heck of an ulterior motive.
(iii) what happened in theocratic Israel presumably happened with God's consent. Or at least that is the Christian position. It is not the Christian position that circumcision still happens with God's consent.
(iv) in the ER one makes educated guesses about what someone's consent would be likely to be, because of the immediacy of needing a life and death decision. The situation is not comparable.
Yes, the OT rite is mutilation. That's what the word means.
As for your EO gratuitous logical fallacy of ad-hominem.... I might just as well mention that it's high time you stopped beating your wife. Or at least that comment just as much follows from what you said, as your comment flows from what I said.
John
ReplyDelete“(i) So why is Judaism true enough that you feel the need to pander to them? Why aren't you here arguing for female circumcision to pander to other false religions?”
The NT doesn’t treat Judaism as a “false” religion. Indeed, the NT builds on Judaism. It corrects some errors in 2nd temple Judaism, but it doesn’t begin to dismiss Judaism wholesale.
“(ii) Yes, a state ‘can’ pander to false religions for various reasons. Pandering to child mutilation would require one heck of an ulterior motive.”
Perhaps we should outlaw a false religion like the Eastern Orthodox church, rather than “pander” to the Eastern Orthodox idolaters by allowing them to practice their false religion.
“(iii) what happened in theocratic Israel presumably happened with God's consent. Or at least that is the Christian position. It is not the Christian position that circumcision still happens with God's consent.”
a) If God ever consented to circumcision, then it’s not intrinsically wrong.
b) Was it unchristian for Paul to circumcise Timothy?
“(iv) in the ER one makes educated guesses about what someone's consent would be likely to be, because of the immediacy of needing a life and death decision. The situation is not comparable.”
a) Now you’re introducing qualifications you didn’t make before.
b) OT circumcision wasn’t consensual.
“Yes, the OT rite is mutilation. That's what the word means.”
No, that’s not what the word means. In any event, do you think OT circumcision was intrinsically wrong?
“As for your EO gratuitous logical fallacy of ad-hominem.”
Your comments bristle with anti-Jewish animosity, which is characteristic of Eastern Orthodox I’ve dealt with.
Is it intrinsically wrong to mutilate a child?
ReplyDelete(a) It was OK for Abraham to murder his child, but only when there was a clear, unambiguous, definitive, unarguable command from God to do so. Absent all those conditions it was wrong. That it was right in that one case, doesn't make it right in all cases.
(b) Paul said that if you let yourself be circumcised, Jesus Christ is of no value to you. While that statement might have some subtle nuances and circumstances and unpacking, nevertheless it shows that what can be at one time right, can later be wrong.
(c) There has been some doubt raised about whether OT circumcision was what is practiced today. You can't prove with certainty what was practiced then.
Is Judaism a false religion?
(a) Again, what is right at one time, can be false at another time.
(b) Modern Judaism isn't NT Judaism anyway.
(c) NT Judaism isn't what Jesus said was true Judaism. Therefore modern Judaism is several steps from removed from anything God instituted.
Was it un-Christian for Paul to circumcise Timothyr? No, but Timothy was a consensual participant.
I fail to see how I'm "introducing qualifications you didn’t make before" concerning the ER scenario, since you brought it up, and I responded. If circumcision was a life saving procedure, then there would be something to talk about, but it isn't, so why you think the ER matters, I don't know.
You seem to extremely confused about how someone can be anti a false religion without being anti-Jewish. I am no more anti-Jewish than I am anti-Buddhist or anti-Muslim. You always descend into this ad-hominem nonsense as you start to lose.
John7/09/2012 8:32 AM
ReplyDelete“Is it intrinsically wrong to mutilate a child? (a) It was OK for Abraham to murder his child, but only when there was a clear, unambiguous, definitive, unarguable command from God to do so. Absent all those conditions it was wrong.”
If Abraham was acting at God’s behest, it wouldn’t be “murder.”
“That it was right in that one case, doesn't make it right in all cases.”
Which is why you need a separate argument. You’re not entitled to posit that circumcision is wrong absent a definitive, unambiguous, unarguable standing command from God. You’re stacking the deck.
“(b) Paul said that if you let yourself be circumcised, Jesus Christ is of no value to you. While that statement might have some subtle nuances and circumstances and unpacking, nevertheless it shows that what can be at one time right, can later be wrong.”
You’re quoting Paul out of context. He’s responding to the Judaizers. He’s responding to converts who are wrongly motivated to undergo circumcision.
Timothy let himself be circumcised. By the very apostle you’re quoting. Did that make Christ of no value to Timothy? You need to stop raising brainless objections.
Paul treats circumcision as something inherently neutral (1 Cor 7:19). It only becomes a big issue of people make it a bigger issue than it really is.
“(c) There has been some doubt raised about whether OT circumcision was what is practiced today.”
That’s the point of this post. It links to a widely quoted article that reviews that very issue.
“You can't prove with certainty what was practiced then.”
That’s an artificial standard. The onus is not on me to prove with “certainty” that it’s the same. By that yardstick, the onus is on you to prove with certainty that it wasn’t the same. The burden of proof is a two-way street.
“(a) Again, what is right at one time, can be false at another time.”
For which you need to provide a supporting argument. That’s not something you’re entitled to stipulate.
“(b) Modern Judaism isn't NT Judaism anyway. (c) NT Judaism isn't what Jesus said was true Judaism. Therefore modern Judaism is several steps from removed from anything God instituted.”
You keep resorting to a fallacious all-or-nothing argument, which betrays the desperation of your argument.
From my standpoint, Eastern Orthodoxy is several steps removed from anything God instituted. So should we outlaw Eastern Orthodoxy?
“Was it un-Christian for Paul to circumcise Timothyr? No, but Timothy was a consensual participant.”
OT neonatal circumcision was nonconsensual. You keep imposing a condition that the Bible doesn’t acknowledge.
For that matter, babies don’t consent to paedobaptism or paedocommunion in Eastern Orthodoxy.
“I fail to see how I'm ‘introducing qualifications you didn’t make before’ concerning the ER scenario, since you brought it up, and I responded. If circumcision was a life saving procedure, then there would be something to talk about, but it isn't, so why you think the ER matters, I don't know.”
It matters when you resort to the fallacy of hasty generalizations.
“You seem to extremely confused about how someone can be anti a false religion without being anti-Jewish. I am no more anti-Jewish than I am anti-Buddhist or anti-Muslim. You always descend into this ad-hominem nonsense as you start to lose.”
Judaism isn’t comparable to Islam or Mormonism.
For some reason you have a tremendous emotional investment in the anticircumcision cause, that's out of all proportion to the merits of the issue. You need to lower the volume of your blaring hysteria. Stop acting like a schoolgirl who runs screaming from a Garter snake.
I don't need a definitive statement from God to posit that cutting bits off of children is at least prima facie wrong. I mean, anything that causes physical pain to another human being is prima facie wrong. It takes a very strong argument to overcome this presumption.
ReplyDeleteYes Paul is responding to converts. It doesn't alter the fact that what God had at one time ordered in one circumstance, can't be assumed to therefore be acceptable behavior t any time or any place, simply for that reason. In fact, what was at one time ordered, is now unacceptable according to Paul in other circumstances. Mentioning Timothy really doesn't alter this at all.
1cor 7:19 is really only saying that circumcision doesn't help at all with righteousness. In fact ironically, you are arguing that circumcision is ok because at one time it was a command of god, but this verse says circumcise counts for nothing, but keeping God's commands DOES count. QED, circumcision is no longer a command of god. Furthermore, he is probably more addressing the concerns of adults about whether they should circumcise themselves, not whether it is ok to inflict this on children.
As for burden of proof, you really haven't responded to what I said, which is that if you want to cut bits of children's bodies off, the high standard of proof is on you, not me. Mere balance of probability doesn't cut it as far as proving what they practiced. We've all seen the arguments between baptists and Presbyterians about what the early church practiced as far as paedo baptism and paedo communion. What isn't stated explicitly is historically lost in the midst of time, no matter what hints people argue about. You don't cut bits off children because you might be right, or even because you are more likely to be right than not.
As far as providing a supporting argument that things right at one time might not be right later, I already provided several supporting arguments. Abraham killing his son. Paul's admonition about circumcision.
Should you outlaw Eastern Orthodoxy? Well that's really up to you if you want to try. I might perhaps outlaw your religion if given the chance, who knows. You are the one advocating the pluralistic society, so you have to defend it.
Paedo baptism does not involve cutting body parts off. There is no serious objection to bathing a baby.
I have an emotional investment, LOL! You're the one who is writing a whole blog series, you're the one immediately resorting to ad-hominem, and the tone of your responses is entirely more hysterical. All I might add, in support of a religion you don't subscribe to.
John:
Delete“I don't need a definitive statement from God to posit that cutting bits off of children is at least prima facie wrong. I mean, anything that causes physical pain to another human being is prima facie wrong. It takes a very strong argument to overcome this presumption.”
Asserting that it’s prima facie wrong doesn’t make it prima facie wrong. Asserting that I have a presumption to overcome doesn’t create an actual presumption.
“It doesn't alter the fact that what God had at one time ordered in one circumstance, can't be assumed to therefore be acceptable behavior t any time or any place, simply for that reason.”
And it can’t be assumed to be unacceptable. You keep shirking your own burden of proof.
“Mentioning Timothy really doesn't alter this at all.”
The case of Timothy demonstrates that even under the new covenant, circumcision isn’t inherently or presumptively wrong.
I think all reasonable people can see that cutting body parts off other people without their consent is wrong in a way that doing so to yourself is not. The fact that I would have to try and explain why just shows the desperation of your position. Apparently you think the government could give open slather on the mutilation of children, and you wouldn't be able to mount any kind of rational argument about why that should be presumed to be wrong. AMAZING!!!!
DeleteJohn
Delete"I think all reasonable people can see that cutting body parts off other people without their consent is wrong in a way that doing so to yourself is not."
So all reasonable people think it's okay for an adult to amputate one of his digits as long as that's consensual.
Once again, nice to see the moral clarity of an anticircumcisionist.
I didn't say amputating your own finger was not wrong. I said amputating somebody elses is wrong IN A WAY THAT AMPUTING YOUR OWN IS NOT. Frankly this is obvious. The court will have something to say about amputating somebody else's digit. If you amputate your own, the judge might say you were wrong, but still do nothing about it.
DeleteYou resorted to another hasty generalization. That's your modus operandi.
DeleteCont. “1cor 7:19 is really only saying that circumcision doesn't help at all with righteousness. In fact ironically, you are arguing that circumcision is ok because at one time it was a command of god, but this verse says circumcise counts for nothing, but keeping God's commands DOES count.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s your typically one-sided treatment. He say both circumcision and uncircumcision count for nothing. Both conditions are essentially irrelevant.
“QED, circumcision is no longer a command of god.”
Under the new covenant, God doesn’t command us to circumcise, and God doesn’t command us not to circumcise.
You do lots of things that God doesn’t command. So that’s a red herring.
“As for burden of proof, you really haven't responded to what I said, which is that if you want to cut bits of children's bodies off, the high standard of proof is on you, not me.”
Like trimming their fingernails and toenails. Cutting their hair.
“Mere balance of probability doesn't cut it as far as proving what they practiced.”
It doesn’t cut it one way or the other.
“We've all seen the arguments between baptists and Presbyterians about what the early church practiced as far as paedo baptism and paedo communion.”
Which is why we shouldn’t be dogmatic.
“You don't cut bits off children because you might be right, or even because you are more likely to be right than not.”
So we shouldn’t excise a cancerous tumor.
“As far as providing a supporting argument that things right at one time might not be right later, I already provided several supporting arguments. Abraham killing his son. Paul's admonition about circumcision.”
That merely raises a possibility which could tilt in either direction.
“You are the one advocating the pluralistic society, so you have to defend it.”
That’s a simpleminded misstatement of my position.
“Paedo baptism does not involve cutting body parts off.”
So, once again, you’re shifting ground. You’re the one who acted as if lack of consent was the deal breaker. The moment I come up with a counterexample, you abandon that argument.
“I have an emotional investment, LOL! You're the one who is writing a whole blog series…”
You have the attention span of a young child. I you bothered to notice, I’m responding to objections. I didn’t initiate a blog series on circumcision. Rather, anticircumcision fanatics decided to make a big deal about this.
“You're the one immediately resorting to ad-hominem…”
It’s perfectly legit for me to point out that you’re chronically illogical. You’re illogicality is an impediment to rational debate.
“All I might add, in support of a religion you don't subscribe to.”
It’s often admirable to lend support to someone we don’t agree with.
Circumcision is irrelevant to making yourself right with God. So is cutting off your hands and feet. Does it thereby give you open slather to cut off children's hands and feet? Of course not. Your arguments are plain silly.
DeleteAnd under the new covenant God doesn't command us to not cut off our children's hands and feet. So it's ok, I guess?
So you think fingernails are the same as circumcision? Will you accept this argument if I want to cut off my children's hands? Didn't think so. Open slather for child mutilation if your arguments are rational. Of course they are not, they are plain silly.
And of course, lack of consent is only a deal breaker when it comes to hurting children. Obviously it isn't a deal breaker for bathing children. Apparently deciding to cut off your children's hands is equivalent to bathing them without their consent. AMAZING!!!
Oh, and I'm merely "responding to objections" too. What's good for the goose...
John
ReplyDelete"Circumcision is irrelevant to making yourself right with God. So is cutting off your hands and feet. Does it thereby give you open slather to cut off children's hands and feet? Of course not. Your arguments are plain silly."
You lack the emotional maturity to follow your own arguments. You were the one who brought up Paul's position on circumcision vis-à-vis the Judaizers. Therefore, I cited some Pauline counterexamples.
You constantly indulge in hasty generalizations. Hasty generalizations invite counterexamples. When I respond to you on your own terms, you wax indiginant.
"So you think fingernails are the same as circumcision?"
Once again, you resorted to a hasty generalization: "cutting bits off children."
Well, trimming their fingernails is an example of cutting bits off children.
"Open slather for child mutilation if your arguments are rational."
Trimming a piece of skin (e.g. circumcision) is equivalent to mutilation? If I trim my callouses, am I mutilating myself?
"And of course, lack of consent is only a deal breaker when it comes to hurting children."
Vaccinating children is both painful and nonconsensual. Should we therefore outlaw child vaccination?
You habitually resort to hasty generalizations.
You've amply illustrated your congenital inability to have a intelligent discussion. So take your arrested development somewhere else. This blog is not a sandbox for overgrown children like yourself.
Callouses are a medical problem, and they grow back. Foreskin is not a medical problem, and it does not grow back.
DeleteMost people feel that the small pain of vaccinations is a good guard against the large pain of a severe disease. There is no corresponding compelling argument, with such a lobsided cost/benefit trade off for circumcision.
But you know what, if most people on society felt that the pain inflicted on children by vaccinations warranted its banning, then society would have a right to do so. That's the problem with your circumcision argument. Trying to shift around burdens of proof is not compelling enough for society to not ban it if it wants to. If secular society thinks its a barbarous practice that should be banned, you havn't given anything substantial to argue against except maybe this and maybe that.
John said:
Delete"Most people feel that the small pain of vaccinations is a good guard against the large pain of a severe disease. There is no corresponding compelling argument, with such a lobsided cost/benefit trade off for circumcision."
Actually, it's arguable the medical and scientific literature does support some health benefit(s) in some people which could warrant circumcision on a cost-benefit analysis, ultimately depending on the individual in question. For example, there's plausible support in the medical literature for some protective effects against urinary tract infections in some people, risk reduction of sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis in some people, risk reduction in HIV in some people, risk reduction in cervical cancer in some people, and risk reduction in penile cancer in some people. Of course, the medical literature does have its limitations. But again at the very least it's arguable.
Presumably little children are not getting STDs.
DeleteJohn said:
Delete"Presumably little children are not getting STDs."
To take an example, there are a lot of kids born with HIV in eastern and southern Africa.
Although again it's a debatable topic, and although it's best to interact with the medical literature on which the claims are based, UNICEF has nevertheless claimed:
"There is now compelling evidence that male circumcision can reduce the risk of a man contracting HIV from unprotected sex with an infected woman by 60 percent...Adolescent boys and young men: Providing medical male circumcision to older boys and to young men will reduce their HIV-risk when they become sexually active. Providing services to this age group will have an immediate impact on reducing HIV infection. In many societies in ESA, there is a long tradition of circumcising adolescent boys as part of a ‘coming of age’ ceremony. However, surgery carried out by traditional providers often results in dangerous complications and sometimes even death. Therefore, male circumcision needs to be performed by properly trained health workers. It also needs to be accompanied by behaviour change communication in order to ensure reduction of partners and use of condoms. Babies: Circumcising infant boys is a relatively straightforward procedure and if properly carried out, complications are very rare. However, infant circumcision on reducing the HIV risk will only pay off when the boy has grown up and starts to become sexually active. However, given the enormous challenges of HIV prevention and the uncertainty that better prevention measures, such as a vaccine, will be available some time in foreseeable future, public health experts consider that the introduction of widespread medical male circumcision for infants would be a good investment in African countries with high HIV-prevalence."
UNICEF further notes several countries in eastern and southern Africa have rolled out male circumcision programs. Presumably these nations believe there is enough of a favorable "cost/benefit trade off" to warrant male circumcision programs in their nations.
Again, it's not 7day old babies that are contracting HIV through sex. If this argument is so great, you should be advocating mandatory circumcision of 15 year old boys. Let's see if you want to back that horse.
DeleteRocking was responding to your hasty generalization ("Presumably little children are not getting STDs"). You incessantly make sloppy sweeping claims that disregard exceptions or major counterexamples.
DeleteWhy should I care about counter examples that are completely irrelevant to the argument? Yes, children get STDs, but not in a way that is stopped by having children with no foreskin. Yet again you whine and whinge and stamp your feet about corner cases that have no bearing on the argument.
DeleteTo the contrary, it's fine with me if your argument is a tissue of fallacies (the fallacy of the hasty generalization being your favorite). Your addiction to fallacious reasoning hurts your position, not mine.
DeleteJohn said:
Delete"If this argument is so great, you should be advocating mandatory circumcision of 15 year old boys. Let's see if you want to back that horse."
Why?
1. For one thing, just because I make a counterpoint to your point doesn't necessarily mean I myself agree with the counterpoint.
2. For another, you've forgotten (or ignored) the context of your own claim. Originally you framed it in terms of a "cost/benefit trade off". Not in terms of what's "mandatory". So even if I agreed with the argument I wouldn't need to advocate "mandatory" adolescent circumcision; I'd only need to advocate adolescent circumcision if the "cost/benefit trade off" is favorable.
3. Moreover, as I noted above, UNICEF does advocate adolescent male circumicision in some eastern and southern African nations. Also, according to the article, some eastern and southern African nations likewise advocate male circumcision programs including among adolescents (e.g. Kenya). So unless their policy has since changed, it sounds like organizations like UNICEF and nations like Kenya are indeed "back[ing] that horse" at least among certain groups.
"Why should I care about counter examples that are completely irrelevant to the argument? Yes, children get STDs, but not in a way that is stopped by having children with no foreskin."
I'll just quote from the article again since you evidently missed it the first time around: "However, infant circumcision on reducing the HIV risk will only pay off when the boy has grown up and starts to become sexually active. However, given the enormous challenges of HIV prevention and the uncertainty that better prevention measures, such as a vaccine, will be available some time in foreseeable future, public health experts consider that the introduction of widespread medical male circumcision for infants would be a good investment in African countries with high HIV-prevalence."
Originally John claimed: "Presumably little children are not getting STDs."
DeleteAfter my response, John admitted: "Yes, children get STDs..."
Thanks, that's all I need to hear.
1. The term for that behaviour is called "trolling".
Delete2. My cost benefit statement was about necessary preconditions to overcoming the presumption of a child to have the right to choose. Nothing you wrote has any benefit whatsoever since it doesn't benefit any child to which the procedure is applied to, until such point in time as they could have chosen anyway.
3. Nobody here has argued that people ought not be circumcised if that is what they themselves want. If this is an argument for forcing it on people, then at least be consistent and advocate forcing it on adults too. Since nobody here is willing to out their hands up to defend that, obviously it's a total nonsense.
Your pithy comment about children getting STDs is about as stupid as advocating issuing condoms to babies because "children get STDs".
John
Delete"1. The term for that behaviour is called "trolling"."
Nice to see you've identified yourself.
"2. My cost benefit statement was about necessary preconditions to overcoming the presumption of a child to have the right to choose."
There is no presumption to overcome. You're not entitled to posit a presumption which others are required to overcome. You have to argue for any alleged presumption.
"3. Nobody here has argued that people ought not be circumcised if that is what they themselves want."
Actually, women should not be circumcised, even if that's what they want.
"If this is an argument for forcing it on people, then at least be consistent and advocate forcing it on adults too. Since nobody here is willing to out their hands up to defend that, obviously it's a total nonsense."
Let's meet John halfway. I advocate that John be forcibly circumcised. And if he's already been circumcised, we'll consider a suitable substitute, like having all his body hair forcibly plucked.
John said:
Delete"The term for that behaviour is called 'trolling'."
I'm pleased you think so. But I would hardly suggest my comment is worthy of the name. In fact, given you think my comment constitutes trollish behavior, it's obvious you lack familiarity with let alone understand the fine art of trolling. You might consider taking some tips from this kid instead.
On a more serious note, what's problematic is you're allowing your overwrought emotional investment dictate your (illogical) responses. I suggest you chillax and come back to this when you're in a better frame of mind to think reasonably.
"Your pithy comment about children getting STDs is about as stupid as advocating issuing condoms to babies because 'children get STDs'.
Since my comment was pegged on and responsive to your own hasty generalization ("Presumably little children are not getting STDs"), this is a backdoor admission that your hasty generalization itself is "stupid". I have no problem agreeing with that.
Anyway, don't be so chafed at yourself. After all, you're trying to do the best you can with what you've got.
With regard to the rest of your comments, Steve's responses were right on!
By the way, John, I suppose more evidence that you're letting your emotions carry the day over your reason can be seen in your reading comprehension deficiency. It seems you're too blinkered in desiring to dash off your next comment that you didn't take the time to properly read the response(s) in the first place. For example, as I've said, the argument hasn't actually been mine, per se. Rather I've by and large been quoting from the UNICEF article.
DeleteOr perhaps you lack the ability to appreciate subtlety or nuance. Not that one would think directly quoting another article is all that subtle or nuanced in the first place! But apparently we have to take a more inclusive approach which includes such things as blunt trauma when it comes to you. You might never join the club unless you were beat over the head with it.
So Steve, on the one hand you don't recognize an individuals right to self determination for male circumcision, as far as whether others should be able to force it on you. On the other hand you don't recognize the individuals right to self determination for female circumcision, as far as whether others should be able to force you NOT to do it. Or in other words, all you believe in is rule by dictator Steve. All hale our new fuhrer. All wise Steve will tell us what to do. Just don't ask many questions or hope for any consistency.
DeleteDid UNICEF say that babies are getting STDs because of their foreskin? No of course not. Merely quoting a completely irrelevant UNICEF statement, does not an argument make, even if said statement is true. You'll have to take responsibility for that nonsense yourself and not blame it on UNICEF.
DeleteI believe in God's right.
DeleteBTW, your adopted denomination has never been big on freedom of dissent. So maybe you're the one who has a problem with consistency, not me.
Your previous stance was that what is not explicitly banned is permissible. Perhaps for once in your life you'll be consistent and quote us the bible verse banning female circumcision.
DeleteAnd hey, I'm not the one here dissenting, so if I don't support dissent, there is no inconsistency here. You are dissenting the lawfully acting German authorities.
John
Delete"Your previous stance was that what is not explicitly banned is permissible."
No, you idiot. What I said is that you can't infer that something is prohibitory from the fact that it's no longer obligatory.
"Perhaps for once in your life you'll be consistent and quote us the bible verse banning female circumcision."
No, idiot. One wouldn't need a specific verse to that effect. That could be deducible from general teachings of Scripture.
"And hey, I'm not the one here dissenting, so if I don't support dissent, there is no inconsistency here."
Indeed there is. You've been promoting self-determination and consent. Well, Eastern Orthodoxy used to persecute dissenters, back when your church had the political clout to do so.
"You are dissenting the lawfully acting German authorities."
i) I'm not German.
ii) There's a difference between legality and morality. But I wouldn't expect you do have the moral or mental capacity to appreciate that distinction.
iii) The Nazis lawfully enacted anti-Jewish laws. Something you'd probably support.
I've given you enough rope to hang yourself on, and you've been very cooperative in using the rope to hang yourself. You can go away now.
John said:
Delete"Did UNICEF say that babies are getting STDs because of their foreskin? No of course not. Merely quoting a completely irrelevant UNICEF statement, does not an argument make, even if said statement is true. You'll have to take responsibility for that nonsense yourself and not blame it on UNICEF."
Did John originally say that babies are not getting STDs because of their foreskin? No of course not. Rather John originally made the hasty generalization, "Presumably little children are not getting STDs". Merely tacking on a completely irrelevant statement to patch up your hasty generalization after the fact, does not a counter argument make, even if said statement is true. You'll have to take responsibility for that nonsense yourself and not blame it on me.
John
ReplyDelete"Callouses are a medical problem, and they grow back. Foreskin is not a medical problem, and it does not grow back."
So your objection about nonconsent is just a decoy.
"Most people feel that the small pain of vaccinations is a good guard against the large pain of a severe disease. There is no corresponding compelling argument, with such a lobsided cost/benefit trade off for circumcision."
What was the cost/benefit tradeoff for OT circumcision?
"But you know what, if most people on society felt that the pain inflicted on children by vaccinations warranted its banning, then society would have a right to do so."
Even if that's harmful to children? What became of your argument about not harming kids?
"If secular society thinks its a barbarous practice that should be banned, you havn't given anything substantial to argue against except maybe this and maybe that."
If secular society thinks it's not a barbarous practice that shouldn't be banned, you haven't given anything substantial to argue against except maybe this and maybe that.
You're an intellectual sociopath. You have no capacity to anticipate the most obvious counterexamples.
You uncritically ape the arguments you picked up from reading anticircumcisionist sites.
Obviously... And I can't believe I have to spell this out... rational behaviour requires examining a number of factors: consent, cost/benefit, right to self determination etc. it's not either/ or consent as an issue. Presumably you wouldn't allow parents to cut off their children's hands any more than I would, which you conveniently ignore.
ReplyDeleteThe cost benefit of OT circumcision? Speaking from the secular perspective, which is your big argument, the answer is "not much".
What about the harm to kids from banning vaccinations? Well that's why society is unlikely to ban it. Society rightly reserves the right to provide kids with what it considers a minimal level of protection from harm... Even harm from their parents. If society should decide that circumcision falls into that category, I can't see why any Christian should have any objections.
Now didn't this whole series of yours start because some German court ruled against circumcision? That's really the point of this debate then. Not whether society does, or should or ought to ban circumcision. Rather your irrational objection because one society DID in fact ban it. In the end, that's what puts the burden of proof on you. A society went and did it, and you can't mount any response. Even of my only argument was the right of a child to choose over and against .... well basically against no real opposing secular argument, that wins in a secular society.
John
ReplyDelete"Obviously... And I can't believe I have to spell this out... rational behaviour requires examining a number of factors: consent, cost/benefit, right to self determination etc. it's not either/ or consent as an issue."
Yes, you assume a burden of proof. You also need to show how your various objections cohere.
"The cost benefit of OT circumcision? Speaking from the secular perspective, which is your big argument, the answer is 'not much'. "
My argument was never confined to a secular perspective. Try to keep more than one idea in your head at a time. If you paid attention, you'd notice that I was fielding a variety of objections, including objections from ostensible Christians.
"If society should decide that circumcision falls into that category, I can't see why any Christian should have any objections."
Social approval doesn't make something right or wrong.
"In the end, that's what puts the burden of proof on you."
When you object to my position, you assume a corollary burden of proof.
"A society went and did it, and you can't mount any response."
I've mounted multiple responses in multiple posts. Sorry if you can't keep up with the argument."
"Even of my only argument was the right of a child to choose over and against .... well basically against no real opposing secular argument, that wins in a secular society."
Many secular regimes have no regard for consent, whether in reference to minors or adults.
Well let's summarize your recent postings. You made an argument about individual freedom, but couldn't really provide a convincing argument about why parental freedom ought to override individual freedom of the child to choose when he is old enough.
ReplyDeleteYou made an argument that modern circumcision is probably the same as the ancient practice. That's not really an argument in favour of allowing it. An it begs the question of why "probably" ought to be a high enough standard of proof for society to consider it in any debate.
You said we ought defend the right to allow Judaism. You didn't give much reason beyond "well it's not as bad as Islam" and "it might be good not to annoy the Jews". Those are arguments, not very good ones.
You argued that those who oppose circumcision are not against other body modifications. This is false.
You argued that it is a "recipe for totalitarian government". But you weren't willing to argue parents should have the right to cut off their kids hands. So obviously you recognize that a government ought to be able to reasonably put limits on modifying their children's bodies.
You argued that banning it might put the practice underground. The same could be said for drugs and child porn, and while a legitimate argument, it doesn't amount to much more than practicalities.
In summary, none of it amounted to much. You have a lot of indignation about the Germans trying to ban, but nothing that I can see that would make the Germans sit up and take notice. Since you are annoyed at the Germans, the burden of proof does indeed rest with you. Another society exercised its choice. You don't like it. So you'll have to come up with something pretty good to make anyone care.
John
ReplyDelete"Well let's summarize your recent postings."
Your tendentious summary of my recent postings.
"You made an argument about individual freedom, but couldn't really provide a convincing argument about why parental freedom ought to override individual freedom of the child to choose when he is old enough."
Your assertion that my argument was unconvincing is not a counterargument, but just your unreasoning opinion.
"You said we ought defend the right to allow Judaism. You didn't give much reason beyond 'well it's not as bad as Islam' and 'it might be good not to annoy the Jews'."
That's a caricature of my arguments. But I understand if it sailed over your head. Perhaps I should try to aim lower.
"You argued that those who oppose circumcision are not against other body modifications. This is false."
Actually, there's no monolithic position on that. And you yourself inconsistently careen between objections based on alleged harm and arguments based on consent.
"You argued that it is a 'recipe for totalitarian government'. But you weren't willing to argue parents should have the right to cut off their kids hands. So obviously you recognize that a government ought to be able to reasonably put limits on modifying their children's bodies."
My argument regarding totalitarian gov't was far more nuanced. But, again, if that sailed right over your head, I understand.
"You argued that banning it might put the practice underground. The same could be said for drugs and child porn, and while a legitimate argument, it doesn't amount to much more than practicalities."
As usual, you're unable to sort out different kinds of arguments. I was responding to you on your own terms. But thanks for never missing a chance to display your intellectual opacity.
"So you'll have to come up with something pretty good to make anyone care."
And I wouldn't expect an antisemite like you to care.
John
ReplyDelete"You made an argument that modern circumcision is probably the same as the ancient practice. That's not really an argument in favour of allowing it."
Per the norm, you have zero ability to keep track of arguments. Some ostensibly Christian anticircumcisionists claim modern Jewish circumcision does not enjoy biblical sanction between it's different from OT circumcision. I'm answering them on their own grounds. So that's directly germane to the issue at hand, as they themselves chose to frame the issue. But you lack the mental concentration to absorb these rudimentary distinctions.
"An it begs the question of why 'probably' ought to be a high enough standard of proof for society to consider it in any debate."
i) It no more begs the question than you beg the question by asserting that to be too low a standard of proof.
ii) This has nothing to do with what society in general considers pertinent, but what some ostensibly Christian anticircumcisionists consider pertinent. You keep getting your wires crossed. Learn a modicum of mental discipline.
iii) You're not holding the anticircumcisionists who deploy this objection to the same evidentiary standard. So you're guilty of special pleading.
Firstly, I notice you've shifted the goalposts. Initially you simply wanted a corroboration of my claim by a rabbi, as you mentioned rabbis would be familiar with Jewish history. I provided you with a link to a page by a rabbi who claimed the procedure of circumcision changed over history. Now he's unqualified to make that claim?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the article you posted doesn't refute my position. My claim was not that OT circumcision never resulted in some part of the glans being exposed *in adulthood*, but that OT circumcision did not strip the foreskin from the glans and bare it *in infancy*. Penises grow, foreskins vary in length and it is impossible to tell at birth how much foreskin will be required in adulthood to cover the glans. Snipping off the foreskin which protruded from the end of the penis (milah) could well result, in adulthood, in a partially exposed glans, which would have been considered obscene by Greeks. Epispasm would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to do following a modern (Jewish or secular) circumcision - there would not have been enough remaining foreskin left to pull forward (or in the case of surgical epispasm, released from the shaft). This is hinted at in Rabbi Judah's comment in the linked article - "one who has had his prepuce drawn forward". You can't draw forward what has been completely amputated.
The article's statement that "lesser" circumcision was performed by a minority of Jews for reasons of social pressure, as opposed to being performed that way from the beginning, is not referenced (in an otherwise well-referenced piece); where did the author get this information? It certainly contradicts the Encyclopaedia Judaica, another reference I provided you with earlier.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we play along with your new claim, which is not what you initially claimed. Even so, if the effect of snipping the tip of baby's foreskin is to expose the glans in adolescence or adulthood, then the glans is desensitized, because it lacks that extra stimulative layer. Yet you've been objecting to male circumcision because it desensitizes a key erogenous zone (the glans). So now you have to scale back your original objection.
DeleteSmokering
Delete"Firstly, I notice you've shifted the goalposts. Initially you simply wanted a corroboration of my claim by a rabbi, as you mentioned rabbis would be familiar with Jewish history. I provided you with a link to a page by a rabbi who claimed the procedure of circumcision changed over history. Now he's unqualified to make that claim?"
What makes you think my post had specific reference to you? You're not the only anticircumcisionist who uses this argument. I've run across it from a number of sources. Indeed, you yourself copied it from anticircumcision sites.
You're not the center of the universe. It's not all about you.
Smokering
ReplyDelete"Firstly, I notice you've shifted the goalposts. Initially you simply wanted a corroboration of my claim by a rabbi, as you mentioned rabbis would be familiar with Jewish history. I provided you with a link to a page by a rabbi who claimed the procedure of circumcision changed over history. Now he's unqualified to make that claim?"
i) You yourself said he was "odd." And he was simply paraphrasing other things you've quoted.
ii) Moreover, I asked you if you'd "discussed" your interpretation with rabbis. The cut-and-thrust of interaction is very different from reading something. So you're the one who's moving the goalpost.
iii) Furthermore, asking you if you'd discussed your interpretation with rabbis hardly precludes me from doing my own research. I haven't done anything inconsistent.
"Secondly, the article you posted doesn't refute my position. My claim was not that OT circumcision never resulted in some part of the glans being exposed *in adulthood*, but that OT circumcision did not strip the foreskin from the glans and bare it *in infancy*. Penises grow, foreskins vary in length and it is impossible to tell at birth how much foreskin will be required in adulthood to cover the glans."
i) Penises grow, but foreskins don't? Are you claiming that skin doesn't grow to match the body part it covers?
ii) And you're adding ex post facto qualifications you didn't make in your original claim. I see you moving the goalpost.
"Snipping off the foreskin which protruded from the end of the penis (milah) could well result, in adulthood, in a partially exposed glans..."
Do you have any actual medical evidence to back up that claim? Or is that just your amateur speculation?
"It certainly contradicts the Encyclopaedia Judaica, another reference I provided you with earlier."
i) You yourself are now interpolating distinctions which aren't mentioned in the Encyclopaedia Judaica or the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion.
ii) Everything Hall says is consistent with the two academic sources you quoted. However, he puts those isolated claims into a coherent historical narrative. Taken out of context, they are misleading.